ArticleThe Permanente journal2025
Physician Performance in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System: Implications for Health Disparities.
Article in The Permanente journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) was ostensibly designed to promote better care across participants. However, MIPS risks exacerbating disparities among participants with fewer resources to invest in performance metrics like care delivery improvements or quality reporting. Unfortunately, little is known about how group practice characteristics have impacted MIPS scores and associated reimbursement over time.
methodsThe analysis involved data from the MIPS Overall Clinician Performance Database, which included information about 2019 MIPS performance among all practices and clinicians. MIPS data were combined with other datasets to assess physician group practice characteristics. Additional practice- and area-level variables were obtained from the Dartmouth Atlas and the County Health Rankings file.
resultsIn the adjusted analysis, 2 practice-level characteristics (location in urban areas and larger patient populations) and 2 community-level characteristics (some college education and health care spending) were positively associated with MIPS scores. In contrast, patient population case mix and the proportion of Medicare/Medicaid dual-eligible patients were negatively associated with MIPS scores at the practice level. DISCUSSION: The proportion of Medicare/Medicaid dual-eligible patients, but not the proportion of Black patients, was associated with lower MIPS scores. A number of other practice- and community-level characteristics were also associated with MIPS performance. These findings underscore the potential risk that MIPS may exacerbate health disparities by penalizing practices caring for lower-income populations adversely affected by social drivers of health.
conclusionTo address health disparities in MIPS, policymakers could consider following precedent from other payment programs and account for practice factors when evaluating MIPS performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.